MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

addition on account of income surrendered by the assessee during the course of search. The learned CIT(A) has also mentioned on page 13 of the appellate order that the surrender of income was not voluntary and the income was offered by affidavit agreed to consider in the hands of the assessee. The Learned CIT(A) further relied upon certain

COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-VI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

income and depreciation chart submitted by the assessee company in respect of power plant as well as wind mill wherein the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 80% on written down value as well as additional

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

income. [For Additional Ground No. 3] 5.0 Allowability of depreciation on leasehold rights on land u/s 32(1)(ii) being

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

additional income It is well settled principle of interpretation of penal\nprovisions that the same has to be construed strictly and no penalty cannot be imposed\nunless the case strictly fall within the legal parameters. We, therefore, direct the AO to\ndelete the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) under challenge.”\n9.1. The CBDT, long back through a binding Circular

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

additional income It is well settled principle of interpretation of penal\nprovisions that the same has to be construed strictly and no penalty cannot be imposed\nunless the case strictly fall within the legal parameters. We, therefore, direct the AO to\ndelete the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) under challenge.”\n9.1. The CBDT, long back through a binding Circular

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

additional income It is well settled principle of interpretation of penal\nprovisions that the same has to be construed strictly and no penalty cannot be imposed\nunless the case strictly fall within the legal parameters. We, therefore, direct the AO to\ndelete the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) under challenge.”\n9.1. The CBDT, long back through a binding Circular

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

additional income It is well settled principle of interpretation of penal\nprovisions that the same has to be construed strictly and no penalty cannot be imposed\nunless the case strictly fall within the legal parameters. We, therefore, direct the AO to\ndelete the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) under challenge.”\n9.1. The CBDT, long back through a binding Circular

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

additional income It is well settled principle of interpretation of penal\nprovisions that the same has to be construed strictly and no penalty cannot be imposed\nunless the case strictly fall within the legal parameters. We, therefore, direct the AO to\ndelete the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) under challenge.”\n9.1. The CBDT, long back through a binding Circular

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

income surrendered by the assessee during the survey on account of discrepancy in cost of construction of building, discrepancy in stock and discrepancy in advances and receivables would be considered as business income and not as deemed income under section 69.” • In the case of Bajaj Sons. Ltd., the Hon’ble Chandigarh Bench of ITAT, ITA No. 1127/CHD/2019, has stated

SILVER WINGS LIFE SPACES,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

addition of Rs.32 lakhs ought to be treated as business income. We find force in this contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee, because the expenditure incurred for creating a business asset and it must have been generated through the business carried out by the assessee. It is pertinent to bear in mind that expenditure laid

SAVITRI LEASING FINANCE LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

income at Rs. 4043060/- as against returned loss of Rs. 14,58,716/- and thereby wrongly upholding addition of Rs. 55,01,776/-. 2 SAVITRI LEASING FINANCE LTD VS ITO, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not allowing unabsorbed depreciation

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

depreciation and interest on TDS claimed by the assessee; thereby leading to under- reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. The assessee has not preferred an appeal against the assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 26.11.2019 which indicates that in the absence of any valid explanation, the assessee is unable to challenge the addition

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

depreciation and interest on TDS claimed by the assessee; thereby leading to under- reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. The assessee has not preferred an appeal against the assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 26.11.2019 which indicates that in the absence of any valid explanation, the assessee is unable to challenge the addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-1, KOTA vs. SHRI CHANDI RAM, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

income of Rs.60,72,122/- by making total addition of Rs 50,11,377/-. Details of the same are described in next point. 2. Nature of additions A. Order u/s 143(3) passed on 05.12.2006 by making following additions 1. Disallowance out of labour expenses Rs.2,00,000/-, 2. Disallowance out of tractor hire charges Rs.70,000/-, 3. Disallowance

YUWAM EDUCATION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

income filed. Accordingly he confirmed the addition made by the AO. Submission:- 1. At the outset it is submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings assessee has produced complete books of account and furnished necessary details by way of ledger account of the expenditure as called for. The AO after submission of these details has not pointed

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

addition of Rs.32 lakhs ought to be treated as business income. We find force in this contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee, because the expenditure incurred for creating a business asset and it must have been generated through the business carried out by the assessee. It is pertinent to bear in mind that expenditure laid

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Addition regarding\ndisallowance of depreciation and investment allowance by preferring\none set of evidence was sustained—ITAT was justified in deleting\npenalty-\n(11) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. PARADISE PROPERTIES, SAROJNI MARG, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

income at Rs. 17,86,33,230/- by making following additions: 1. Addition of Rs. 17,25,82,500/- u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. 2. Addition w.r.t. interest expenses of Rs. 97,12,126/-. 3. Disallowance on account of depreciation